Roamer-Medana Watch Corporation

Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)

IN Tile MATTER OF ROAJ\ER-MEDANA WATCH CORPORATION ET AL.

CONSENT ORDER, ETC. , IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOI,ATION OF THE FEDER.\L 'trade COl\DfISSIOX ACT Docket C-137. Complaint, May 11, 1962-Decision, May 11, 1962 Consent order requiring New York City distributors of watches to cease representing falsely in advertising that their \vaiches \were " Fully Guaranteed" and in such advertising and by means of labels or markings on tbe backs of watch cases that certain of their watches were "totally waterproof" Shockproof" Shock-protected" , etc.

CO:\fPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act and by virtue of the authority vested in it by said Act, the Federal Trade COllnnission, having reason to believe that Roamer-M:edana 'Vatch Corpora,tion, a corporation, formerly known as Louis Aisenstein & Bros., Inc. , and Stanley :Moser, a former offcer of said corporation, in his capacity as an individual, and Irving Rosenblum and Ilya Gill, individually and as offcers of said corporation, and Stanley :JIoser and Irving Rosenblum, individually and as fanner copartners, doing business as :Mec1ana 'Vatch Company, hereinafter referred to as respondents, h lve violated the provisions of said Act, and it appearing to the Commission that 11 proceeding by it in respect thereof \,ou1c1 be ill the public interest, hereby issues its complaint st.ating its charges in that respect as follows:

PARAGRAPIl 1. Respondent Roamer-Medana vVlttch Corporation formerly known as Louis Aiscnstcin & Bros., Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and dojl1g business under and by virtue of the laws of tho State of K ew York, with its principal offce a,nd place of business located at 16 East 40th Street, X ew York, N. Y. Respondents Irving Rosenblum and Ilya Gill arc offccrs of the corporate respondent. Their address is the same as that of the corporate respondent. They formulate, direct and control the acts and practices here.inafter set forth.

Until late in 1D61 Stanley Moser was also an offcer of the corporate respondent and he, together with Irving Rosenblum and llya GilJ formulated, directed and controlled the acts and practices of the corporate respondent, including those hereinafter set forth. I-lis address is 11 Glenwood Drive, Great Neck, N. ROAMER-ME DANA WATCH CORP. ET AL. 1205 1204 Complaint Respondents Stanley Moser and Irving Rosenblum formerly were copartners, doing business as Iedana 1Vatch Company. Their adrh' ess was the same as that of the corporate respondent. PAR. 2. Respondents have been engaged in the assembling, advertising, offering for sale, sale and distribution of watches to retailers wholesalers and others for ultimate resale to the public. PAR. 3. In the course and conduct of their business, respondents have caused their said products, when sold, to be shipped from their place of business in the State of New York to purchasers thereof located in various other States of the United States and the District of Columbia, and have maintained a substantial course of trade in such products in commerce, as "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act.

PAR. 4. Respondents, for the purpose of inducing the purchase of their products, have represented that their watches are guaranteed by the use of such terms as "Guaranteed" and "Fully Guaranteed" in the advertising of their said products, and have thereby represent.ed that said products are fully and unconditionally guaranteed by them ill every respect.

PAR. 5. The aforesaid statements and representations have been false, misleading and deceptive. In truth and ill fact, the guarantee provided has been limited both as to tinle and extent, and the terms conditions and extent to which such guarantee has applied and the manner in which the guarantor would perform thereunder lULVe not been clearly and conspicuously disclosed in close conjunction with the representations of guarantee. J\1:moreover, a charge has been made for service of certain of respondents' watches, which fact has not been disclosed in respondents' advertisements.

PAR. 6. Hespondents, in the course and conduct of their business and for the purpose of inducing the sale of their watches, have stated and represented by means of advertising in magazines and other media, including advertising by means of labels or markings on the backs of certain of their watch cases, that certain of their watches arc "'Waterproof" and "totally Wllterproof". Such statements and representations, on occasion, have appeared without qU(lliHcations or limitations of any kind, and on other occasions, such statements and representations have a.appeared without \words of qualification or limitation in immediate conjunction there-with. Through the use of the aforesaid statements and representations respondents havo represented that their said watches are waterproof in every respect, without qualification or limitation. , , 1206 FEDERAL TRADE CO:\\1ISSIOK DECISIO:VS Decision and Order 60 F.

'\H. 7. The aforesaid statements and representations have been false, misleading a.nd deceptive. In truth and in fact, said watches have not been unqualifiedly and \vit-hout limitation "wilterproof in every respect.

PAR. S. Respondents have further represented by means of advertising, including marking on the back of the cases of certain of their watches, that their watches arc "Shockproof" Totally Shockproof" "Shock-protected" and have a "Shockproof Syst.em \H. D. The aforesaid statements and representations have been false, misleading and deceptive. In truth and in fact, respondent.s watches have not been shockproof, or shock-protected ill every respect.

PAR. 10. By tile aforesaid acts and practices, respondents have placed in the hands of retailers and others lneans and instrumentalities by and through which they may mislead the public as to the guarantee, and the waterproof and shockproof characteristics, of their watclles.

PAR. 11. In the conduct of their business, as aforesaid, respond cnts have been in substantial competition, in commerce wit.h corporations, firms, and individuals in tile sale of ' atches of the same general kind and nature as those sold by respondents. PAR. 12. The use by respondents of the aforesaid false, misleading and dec.eptive statements, representations and practices has had, and 11mv has, the capa,city 'and tendency to nlislead members of the purchasing public into the erroneous and mistaken belief that said statements and representations 'were and ate true and into the purchase of substantial quantities of respondents' products by reason of said erroneous and mistaken belief.

PAR. 13. The aforesaid acts and practices of respondents, as herein alleged, llaye been m1d are all to the prejudice and injury of the public and of respondents' competitors and have constituted and now constitute unfair methods of competition in commerce and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in commerce in violation of Section 5 (it) (1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act. DECISIO AND ORDER The Comrnissiol1 having heretofore determined to issue its complaint cha,rging the respondents named in the caption hereof with violation of the Federal Trade C01nnlission Act, and the respondents having been served with notice of said deter111ination and with a copy of the complaint the Commisiol1 int.ended to issue, together with a proposed form of order; and ROAMER-MEDAKA WATCH CORP. ET AL. 1207 1204 Decision and Order The respondents and counsel for the COlIunission having there,after executed a.n agreement containing a consent order, an admission by the respondents of aJl the jurisdictional facts set forth in the complaint to issue herein, 'i statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that the law has been violated as set forth in such complaint and waivers and provisions as required by the Commission s rules; and The Commission, ha.ving considered the agreclnent, hereby accepts san1e, issues its complaint in the 'foi1n contemplated by said agreement, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order:

1. Respondent, Roamer- JIeclana V atch Corporation, a corporation formerly known a,s Louis Aisenstein & Bros., Inc., is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of ew York, with its offce and principal place of business located at 16 East 40th Street, in the city of New York, State of Ncw York.

Respondents, Irving R.oscnblum and IJya Gill, arc offcers of sa-id corporation. Their address is the same as that of said corporation. sponclent, Stanley :Moser, '''as formerly an offcer of sa, id corporation, and formerly a copartner ,,,ith said Irving Rosenblum, doing businessa.s leda.na "\Vatch Compa.ny. His address is 11 Glen"ood Drive, Great Neck, N.

2. Tho Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the public interest.

ORDER It is ordej' That respondents, Roamer- :.Icdana 'Vatch C0l1)oration a, corporation, formerly knOID as Louis Aisenstein & Bros., Inc. and its offcers, and Stanley \rosel' , a former oIrcer of said corporation in his capacity as an individual, and Irving Hosenblum and Ilya Gill individually and as offcers of said corporation, and Stanley Ioser and Irving Rosenblum, individually and as former copartners, doing business as l\ledana "\Vatch Company, and respondents' agents, representatives and 8nlployees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the advertising, labeling, offering for sale sale and distribution of "atches, or 'any other mercha.ndise, in commerce, H.S "commerce" is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Aet, do forthwith cease and desist from:

1. Representing, directly or by implication: (aJ That their watches or any other products are gllaranteed, unless the nature and extent of the guarantee and the manner in "which the Complaint 60 F.

guarantor will perform thereunder ate clearly and conspicuously disclosed.

(b) That their watches or any other products are guaranteed, when a service charge is imposed, unless the amount thereof is clearly and conspicuously disclosed.

(e) That their watches are waterproof unless said watches are waterproof in every respect without qualification or limitation. (d) That their watches are waterproof under certain conditions, or with certain qualifications or limitations, unless such aforesaid conditions, qualifications or limitations ate clearly and conspicuously set forth in immediate conjunction with the term waterproof. (e) That their watches are shockproof or shock-protected unless said watches are shockproof or shock-protected in every respect. 2. Furnishing any means or instrumentalities to others by and through "which they may misrepresent the guarantee, or the waterproof or shockproof character, of their products. It -is further o"dered That the respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with this order.